Latest Demands from Jim . . .

[jinx13]

 Bruno,

 All I know is that **** name, and defamatory comments about him were removed (part of the bargain)  but jimslistsucks is still up and running, and **** seems to be mocking him for doing his part in the agreement


 Dan, sorry you posted while I was...yes it has escalated between you and Jim, because of this thread I am sure, but **** and Jim were making progress, that is the first step I think...hopefully when things calm down, you and Jim will find some sort of compromise, end this rediculous war, and get back to business.

 p.s. I didn't mean to interject myself in this whole thing, I just wanted to hear the other side of the story, so I e-mailed Jim, than it just took off from there...frankly I'm hoping that if this whole thing ends you will be in a better mood 

[Admin]

Bruno,

 All I know is that **** name, and defamatory comments about him were removed (part of the bargain)  but jimslistsucks is still up and running, and **** seems to be mocking him for doing his part in the agreement


 Dan, sorry you posted while I was...yes it has escalated between you and Jim, because of this thread I am sure, but **** and Jim were making progress, that is the first step I think...hopefully when things calm down, you and Jim will find some sort of compromise, end this rediculous war, and get back to business.

 p.s. I didn't mean to interject myself in this whole thing, I just wanted to hear the other side of the story, so I e-mailed Jim, than it just took off from there...frankly I'm hoping that if this whole thing ends you will be in a better mood 

David,

You are badly mistaken - about a lot of things, and I am not going to take the time to educate you.

I am actually in quite a fine mood - thanks for the concern.

Cheers!

- Dan

[Jooky]

What a mess!

The RWD is a forum when people can discuss the pursuit of Russian women openly. Jim's Lists is a site that many bride seekers encounter and use. If  posters here create threads to warn others that Jim's assessments are unfair and biased, those threads, as long as they follow the rules of this site, should remain. They are related to the pursuit of Russian women.

Jim's site is supposed to warn bride seekers about scammers.

He has posted that Jack and Dan are menaces who promote scam agencies. He either truly believes this or not. If so, he is obligated to warn others. If not, he should remove his denigration of Jack and Dan without anyone catering to his demands.

By making demands in exchange for the removal of his rants, Jim reveals that his assessments are indeed unfair and that he is one to engage in the underhanded tactics he pretends to fight against. In my opinion, this situation serves only to further damage the credibility of Jim's Lists. Nothing more.

[Rvrwind]

CG read Jacks post, your a day late & a dollar short!
I knew exactly what I was talking about when I posted. The fact that Jim caught wind of it & made a minor change is of no consiquence. I asked for my site to be removed entirely from his site, it still is not!
Besides how many guys do you think are going to take the time to distinguish between the two lists when guys still can't distinuish between the Blacklist & the Gold list, If they could the agencies on the Black list would be out of buisness by now!
So by putting my agency & Latin Wife right below the previous list he is effectively creating the assumption that we are like the rest whether or not he puts one little sentence in there to separate us or not. Both of us asked to be removed totally from his site & lists, that leaves no room for interpretation.
I don't want my agency listed on his site or mentioned on his site in any capacity. Is that clear enough?

[jinx13]

 Richard,

 I agree with you as far as being blacklisted for your association with RWD and Dan, but to ask a webite that monitors agencies (whether they like it or not) to remove you completely just isn't going to happen.

 Don't you think every scam agency out there would want to be removed from anti-scam websites? I'm not saying your agency is a scam site, I have no doubt you run a respected and reliable agency, but that doesn't mean you can't be rated just like everyone else. Agency owners shouldn't have a say in what websites they are listed on, only with what is being said about them, and if there is any proof to accusations of harboring scammers.

 I understand your anger and frustration, but really you have no right to tell any anti-scam website that they must remove you from being rated, only that they are fair in their research and opinions.



 
 

[CG]

Marty I was reading your previous post and for once I totally agree with you.


"Dan, Maybe you should take a long hard look at where these wars always seem to originate?"


Yes Marty I totally agree. And let's take a loooooooong look at where these wars seem to originate.

My very first day, first post on the old RWG. I did not know who anyone was when I made my first post.  And right under my very first post was this post from a poster named camerguy.  Cameraguy posted "If Jack Bragg is allowed to post on this site, then I am leaving". 

LOL Jack, that wasn't your first post. Far from it. You forgot the part where you'd been manipulating RW boards for years by using phony aliases (you know, like Landscaper -- the only phony screen name you finally admitted to, even though we all know there were many others) and using RW discussion forums for your personal marketing campaigns by posting fake recommendations from your many aliases. BTW, if you'd learn the difference between 'there' and 'their' (along with some other grammatical and stylistic quirks), your fake posts wouldn't be so easy to recognize.

Your version of history always conveniently omits your long history of dishonesty and self-promotion on the boards. THAT'S the only objection that I (and many others) have had. Your manipulations were far worse than someone like "BudFromAFA." At least he was honest about who he represented.

So yes, I stand by my statement to take a long hard look at where these wars always seem to originate.

BTW Richard, you are correct. Evidently a change was made after you objected. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people will never even notice your listing anywhere on that site. And I thought you were leaving the business and moving back to Canada, anyway.

~CG

[Rvrwind]

Fine David, I can deal with that but the disassociation must be made noticable. Not just stick us under another list with a one sentence separation. But in reality if his site is not doing the job it claims to be & doing it honestly & openly then in reality & ultimately if that can be proven, I do have the right to be removed.
You will note that I did elude to that very thing in a previous post.
He has set himself up as judge, jury & exicutioneer. By what right does he claim these positions? If he wishes to continue & be the MOB police then he above everybody should be seen as squeaky clean. Unfortunately that is not the case, so why should I be held to a higher standard by a website whose owner is not held to that same standard?
When I set out to build my company I set certain policies, lines I would not cross for any reason. My partner has come close on a couple of occaisions to being my ex-partner because of things she wanted to change & I told her flat out, you do & I'm done. Once you make the commitment to walk the high road you cannot waver & if somebody critisizes you for it so be it, you can sleep well knowing you have not compromised your principles. That is exactly what Jim has done, he has sacrificed his reputation & his principals to continue this battle that need not be fought.
Sometimes you just have to know when to hold 'em & know when to fold' em.
The real danger here, as I see it, is Jim has tons of information on hundreds of agencies & scammers. The CMA has a foundation of principals that could form the foundation of a real force to fight the bad guys. The two together could clean up this industry in very short order. What a waste of information & energy when if they worked together they could accomplish something really good & perhap even make history, but instead, we have this. ???

[Rvrwind]

LOL, CG I may be moving back to Canada but I am not leaving the buisness. I have too much invested to walk away & unless you offering to buy me out I guess I am still in it. I just won't be living in Russia 24/7/365 unfortunately.
Besides I figure its time to Canadianize my wife seeing as she is about done Russifyng me!!!

[Admin]

LOL Jack, that wasn't your first post. Far from it. You forgot the part where you'd been manipulating RW boards for years by using phony aliases (you know, like Landscaper -- the only phony screen name you finally admitted to, even though we all know there were many others) and using RW discussion forums for your personal marketing campaigns by posting fake recommendations from your many aliases. BTW, if you'd learn the difference between 'there' and 'their' (along with some other grammatical and stylistic quirks), your fake posts wouldn't be so easy to recognize.

Your version of history always conveniently omits your long history of dishonesty and self-promotion on the boards. THAT'S the only objection that I (and many others) have had. Your manipulations were far worse than someone like "BudFromAFA." At least he was honest about who he represented.

So yes, I stand by my statement to take a long hard look at where these wars always seem to originate.

BTW Richard, you are correct. Evidently a change was made after you objected. But the fact remains that the vast majority of people will never even notice your listing anywhere on that site. And I thought you were leaving the business and moving back to Canada, anyway.

~CG

Marty,

Whether you are correct or not is immaterial. Jack has not, IMO, been guilty of any excess promotion at RWD - and that is ALL I am concerned about.

I will ask again - given that many guys do not like Jack. Given that I have a friendly association with Jack. What do YOU believe is the correct course of action?

Should others judge me and RWD because of their dislike for Jack - there just is not much I can do about it - is there?

- Dan

[jinx13]

Marty,

Whether you are correct or not is immaterial. Jack has not, IMO, been guilty of any excess promotion at RWD - and that is ALL I am concerned about.

I will ask again - given that many guys do not like Jack. Given that I have a friendly association with Jack. What do YOU believe is the correct course of action?

Should others judge me and RWD because of their dislike for Jack - there just is not much I can do about it - is there?

- Dan

 Can I answer Dan, I need to use his name if thats alright, **** is getting rediculous.

 First off, I am not taking any shots at Jack here at all, he has a strong personality, like me, I get that, and he has the right to voice his opinions, and he had an opinion about Jim, he voiced it here...thats fine, but when does it go too far? There should be limits to the rants, if it's brought up again and again it just becomes redundant, and flame worthy. Letting it happen makes it look like you side with him.

 I think you have some Mods that are impartial (in regards to jack) and that helps, but it hasn't seemed to be enough. I have far fewer enemies here, but a much tighter noose, sorry if that pisses you off, but that's how I see it...

 Jack has a lot to offer RWD, he knows Russian women, he spends lots of time with them, he has been "in-country" more than many of us combined, he has a lot of historical Russian knowledge, which I appreciate because I am a history buff myself, he brings something to the table here, but he goes a little overboard in his attacks, we all do sometimes, but he has a LONG history of it, so friends or not, he should abide by the same rules we all do, and be punished accordingly when he violates them.

 

 Disregarded warning

[Admin]

Can I answer Dan, I need to use his name if thats alright, **** is getting rediculous.

 First off, I am not taking any shots at Jack here at all, he has a strong personality, like me, I get that, and he has the right to voice his opinions, and he had an opinion about Jim, he voiced it here...thats fine, but when does it go too far? There should be limits to the rants, if it's brought up again and again it just becomes redundant, and flame worthy. Letting it happen makes it look like you side with him.

 I think you have some Mods that are impartial (in regards to jack) and that helps, but it hasn't seemed to be enough. I have far fewer enemies here, but a much tighter noose, sorry if that pisses you off, but that's how I see it...

 Jack has a lot to offer RWD, he knows Russian women, he spends lots of time with them, he has been "in-country" more than many of us combined, he has a lot of historical Russian knowledge, which I appreciate because I am a history buff myself, he brings something to the table here, but he goes a little overboard in his attacks, we all do sometimes, but he has a LONG history of it, so friends or not, he should abide by the same rules we all do, and be punished accordingly when he violates them.

David,

There just is SOOOOO much you do not know.

You do not know the history of what has transpired with Jim and me.

You do not know the number of times I have refused calls to ban you, and by whom.

You cannot possibly know about the comparisons between you and Jack - or anyone else - and how the Mods and I treat them.

You have no idea what the Mods think - about Jack, or about you.

You have no clue about nearly everything in this topic - yet you persist with inserting yourself.

As for the "tighter noose" - that was well-earned and you are putting on display the reasons why.

- Dan

[Kuna]

What happened to the concept of attacking someone's ideas and not their person.

Dead right Turbo... and anyone that will sit on the fence when it comes to the rubbish on THAT site is a dreamer!

[CG]

Dan, it's not just our dislike for Jack that carries over to having unfavorable impressions of RWD. As I said, it's the perception that you automatically side with and defend Jack no matter how wrong and manically obsessed he becomes. For a couple of quick examples, your handling of Bragg's disputes with Stirlitz and Doug/Olga Salem was clearly biased. Those agencyscams.com and jimslists bashing threads that Jack started should never have been allowed to remain. Neither should the numerous RWG-bashing threads that you implicitly seemed to encourage. What people forget is that RWG was sold and ultimately ruined because Spencer got tired of dealing with mentally disturbed individuals like Bragg. Maybe RWG's demise was good for RWD, but I still resent that a totally honest, stand-up guy like Spencer decided to sell RWG to EC because he got tired of all the BS (like Bragg's lawsuit.) If you don't believe me, ask Jet, another victim of the Jack-attack.

So what's the solution here? Maybe to have not allowed it to escalate in the first place? I think you were on the right track by having an intermediary like Kevin Hayes try to mediate.

But when you choose to lie with dogs and fan the flames by co-sponsoring sites like jimslistsucks, don't be surprised if you wake up being bitten by fleas.

~CG

[Admin]

Dan, it's not just our dislike for Jack that carries over to having unfavorable impressions of RWD. As I said, it's the perception that you automatically side with and defend Jack no matter how wrong and manically obsessed he becomes. For a couple of quick examples, your handling of Bragg's disputes with Stirlitz and Doug/Olga Salem was clearly biased. Those agencyscams.com and jimslists bashing threads that Jack started should never have been allowed to remain. Neither should the numerous RWG-bashing threads that you implicitly seemed to encourage. What people forget is that RWG was sold and ultimately ruined because Spencer got tired of dealing with mentally disturbed individuals like Bragg. Maybe RWG's demise was good for RWD, but I still resent that a totally honest, stand-up guy like Spencer decided to sell RWG to EC because he got tired of all the BS (like Bragg's lawsuit.) If you don't believe me, ask Jet, another victim of the Jack-attack.

So what's the solution here? Maybe to have not allowed it to escalate in the first place? I think you were on the right track by having an intermediary like Kevin Hayes try to mediate.

But when you choose to lie with dogs and fan the flames by co-sponsoring sites like jimslistsucks, don't be surprised if you wake up being bitten by fleas.

~CG

Marty,

I suppose we could re-hash ancient history - but I doubt it would be productive.

You feel I was not impartial in past exchanges - and I know (as do a few others) just how much effort I placed into remaining unbiased - and if anything, was harder on Jack. Nevertheless, I recognize that individual perceptions are important - and you have yours. Others have theirs.

I cannot even begin to address your resentment about the sale of RWG - but that you mention it now, more than a year later, and it disturbs you is truly unfortunate.

- Dan

[Jack]

Isn't it strange how Marty doesn't acknowledge who started the war between us?


Ok, I will address all of Marty's statements, falsehoods and truths, such as WHO was the single most responsible person for the demise of RWG (you should be ashamed of yourself Marty). I do not want to distract this thread from it's subject and will be replying to Marty in the Anything Goes section when I have time to reply over the next several hours.

[viking]

Jinx

Not to be rude, but Dan has mentioned several times that you are unaware of many things. And this argument is between others than yourself. Why do you insist in getting in between people, emailing others, PM's and the like? If this was between me and Joe or Frank or Sam or... and you started to speak with them to find out what was going on, I would be pretty pissed off at you for butting into my affairs. Your opinions here are one thing to determine general consensus on the overall topic, but are you not taking this a bit personal? We would all like a happy ending but your "help" here is not helping. Both Dan and Richard are quite capable of figuring what to do. They do not need a wannabe savior.

[CG]

Yeah Jack, that's exactly what RWD needs -- another one of your long-winded, magnum opus attack-dog threads that lists every petty detail of how you've been wrongfully accused.

Guess what? Nobody cares. Even though Dan will undoubtedly find a justification to let it stand, I won't be responding.

Any former RWG mod knows the truth.

~CG

[BC]

Isn't it strange how Marty doesn't acknowledge who started the war between us?


Ok, I will address all of Marty's statements, falsehoods and truths, such as WHO was the single most responsible person for the demise of RWG (you should be ashamed of yourself Marty). I do not want to distract this thread from it's subject and will be replying to Marty in the Anything Goes section when I have time to reply over the next several hours.

Jack,

Maybe before you two go through all that effort it might be a good idea to post a poll first and see who is really interested... To be quite honest with you I'm not.

oops.. just saw CG replied already.. guest I wasted time on this.. 

[Son of Clyde]

I hate to say this but for a site that should be used as a support network there are many people who just don't like each other.

Be objective and see it as human nature. You can't like everyone.

If Jim is a lunatic don't visit his site and don't take him seriously.

I don't care if you take down the thread or not. Think about freedom of speech, and maybe just keep the offending thread under lock and key.

[Jack]

B.C. should I not be able to address Marty's post where he makes several untruths about me.  Why can he post his bullschit and I not be able to reply to his lies?  I am sure you remember "I am 100% sure Jack Bragg and Barry M are the same person".  Just as he was proved to be a liar with that 100% sure, it's the same with what he has just posted, full of lies and I think it's a good time I reveal Marty's part in what happend to RWG as he is trying to indicate I had something to do with it but in reality, as court documents proved, Marty is the single most responseable individual for the demise of RWG. If Marty is able to post his in-correct versions, why should I not be able to respond?

Marty likes to spread the blame but you notice he takes no blame for his role in what he posted the first time I ever posted on RWG,  ahhhh, poor innocent Marty.

[Admin]

B.C. should I not be able to address Marty's post where he makes several untruths about me.  Why can he post his bullschit and I not be able to reply to his lies?  I am sure you remember "I am 100% sure Jack Bragg and Barry M are the same person".  Just as he was proved to be a liar with that 100% sure, it's the same with what he has just posted, full of lies and I think it's a good time I reveal Marty's part in what happend to RWG as he is trying to indicate I had something to do with it but in reality, as court documents proved, Marty is the single most responseable individual for the demise of RWG. If Marty is able to post his in-correct versions, why should I not be able to respond?

Marty likes to spread the blame but you notice he takes no blame for his role in what he posted the first time I ever posted on RWG,  ahhhh, poor innocent Marty.

Jack,

I was in court not long ago, and there was an attorney badgering the witness about some issue that had occurred eons in the past.

The opposing counsel objected to something - and the judge sustained the objection but followed it by telling the attorney who was doing the badgering; "Counsellor, while you have the right to persist in this line of questioning, I urge you to consider the productivity of continuing down a path in which there is no chance of it ending favorably for your client."

My point is - the 'issue' between you and Marty has been battled - and battled - and battled - and neither of you is going to "win" - whatever that means.

You can, of course, take it to the NHB section - just like any other member. My guess is - and my counsel to others will be FWIW - that it should be ignored. If you feel the need to post so that you are 'on the record' - go ahead - but everybody who has been around for even a little time already knows your position - and what happened one or two or more years ago is of no consequence today.

- Dan

[Jack]

Dan I appreciate your advise.

As Marty has referenced RWG, with his many other cheapshots, I think some of the old RWG'ers around here would like to know the role he played. Few may comment, many I suspect, will read (and learn).

[CG]

Jack,

I was in court not long ago, and there was an attorney badgering the witness about some issue that had occurred eons in the past.

The opposing counsel objected to something - and the judge sustained the objection but followed it by telling the attorney who was doing the badgering; "Counsellor, while you have the right to persist in this line of questioning, I urge you to consider the productivity of continuing down a path in which there is no chance of it ending favorably for your client."

Good advice, Dan. I think you're a reasonable person. That's why I'm surprised how you could become involved in BS disputes like this.

There's a Russian proverb -- "Tell me who's your friend and I'll tell you who you are."

~CG

[Admin]

Good advice, Dan. I think you're a reasonable person. That's why I'm surprised how you could become involved in BS disputes like this.

There's a Russian proverb -- "Tell me who's your friend and I'll tell you who you are."

~CG

My "involvement" in this Marty - grew out of Jim's precipitous listing of RWD on his Blacklist (now Grey List and Shiit-Kick List) - and now his escalation of matters.

While some have posited that it is the result of the enmity between Jim and Jack - I urge you all (those one or two who are interested) to read Bruno's analysis up-thread. He is right on the money - and this would have happened no matter my relationship with Jack.

- Dan

[Mod2]

Can I answer Dan, I need to use his name if thats alright, **** is getting rediculous.

Yes, very 'rediculous'.

You were warned.  Now you are in Moderated status.